Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

    So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.

    • The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

      The fact that they may have been busy destroying

      • It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors.

        You don't invade a country because they're playing parliamentary games.

        Certainly, if Iraq had no WMD, they could have fully cooperated with the UN Inspectors and made a mockery of the US and probably gotten the sanctions lifted in no time.

        I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment). Just th

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

          The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iraq signed on to conditions of inspections in 1992, thus no sovereignty was being violated. We were just enforcing the terms of that Armistice.

          No matter how hard you try to spin

          • I'd love to see how the US would react to UN weapons inspectors and what sort of reception they'd get (and, of course, our subcequent invasion of ourself based on their shoddy treatment).

            The US didn't lose a war where one of the conditions of Armistice was full accounting and destruction of their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

            You miss the point. You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt. Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. Yo

            • You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

              I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.

              Consider the hypothectical situation of UN weapon inspectors in the US. You know the US would scream bloody murder if they came into our country, regardless of the reason.

              So? Then we would be wrong too. Look, Iraq was stated as guilty by the UN Security Council, and that guilty verdict was reaffirmed more than a dozen times in a dozen years; Iraq itself agreed to destroy its weapons and submit to inspections; Iraq itself agreed to allow the UN to take further steps if inspections did not accomplish the task of disarmament and verification. If the US had been found so guilty, and had agreed to what Iraq agreed to, and still blocked it, well ... tough for the US!

              The answer is, of course, oil. We invaded Iraq alone to carve it up for ourselves and we don't even have to share any of it with the UN.

              That's as much nonsense as someone saying it was about liberating Iraqis. Yes, oil has a bit part to do with it, but to take that and leap to "we want to take Iraq's oil" is baseless.

              It was about oil, but not for the sake of taking oil, but for the sake of removing a man who was a serious risk to the stability of the flow of oil from the region. If we just wanted oil, we could have fought for the lifting of the sanctions in exchange for cheap oil. That would have given us as much oil as we wanted for far less money than the war and rebuilding is costing.

              It was about liberation, but not because we love Iraqis, but because a free Iraqi people will lead to a more stable region, which is what the UN said in Resolution 687 when it wrote about the importance of peace and security in the Middle East.
              • You put forth Iraq playing games with UN inspectors as an admission of guilt.

                I don't. I think it is very fishy, but not necessarily a sign of guilt.

                To clarify ... yes, it IS absolute guilt under Resolution 1441, Resolution 687, etc. Iraq was guilty, without any doubt, of breaching those resolutions, which Resolution 1441 said would result in serious consequences, and Resolution 687 said would require the UN Security Council to take further steps (which it refused to do).

                Iraq was absolutely guilty of